This lease involves a guarantee by the lessee of the residual value of the leased vehicle of €3,000, as a result
of (ii) above. However, the guarantee will only be called on if both:
(a) the vehicle’s actual residual value is less than €3,000; and
(b) the vehicle has travelled more than 25,000 kilometres per year on average over the lease term.
Further, the lessee is only liable to pay a certain level of the residual; namely, €100 for each 2,500 kilometres
above 25,000 kilometres that the vehicle has done (if the lessee chooses to drive such amount).
Classification depends on the substance of the arrangement, as described above. In assessing the risks and
rewards of ownership, the entity will take account of the residual guarantee, which may be zero if the lessee
chooses not to drive the vehicle over 25,000 kilometres.
The risks and rewards of ownership are determined in a lease classification by the substance of the
arrangement, including the substance of any residual guarantee arrangements.
Therefore the guarantee would be considered in evaluating the substance of the arrangement on a qualitative
basis, to the extent that experience or expectations of the sales price and/or mileage that vehicles have driven
(and the inter-relationship between these) indicate that a residual payment by the lessee will be made.
If a lease is determined to be a finance lease, IAS 17 requires initial recognition of the asset
at fair value or at the NPV of the minimum lease payments. The residual value guarantee
could then affect the asset’s residual value as explained in Example 23.16 at 4.3.1.A below.
3.2.2.B Rental
rebates
IAS 17 suggests that an indicator that the lease is a finance lease is that ‘the gains or losses
from the fluctuation in the fair value of the residual accrue to the lessee (for example, in
the form of a rent rebate equalling most of the sales proceeds at the end of the lease)’.
[IAS 17.11]. This is because a lessee that obtains most of the sales proceeds has received most
of the risks and rewards of the residual value in the asset. This would indicate that the
lessor has already been compensated for the transaction and hence that it is a finance lease.
Other leases require the asset to be sold at the end of the lease but the lessor receives
the first tranche of proceeds and only those proceeds above a certain level are remitted
to the lessee. These arrangements may have a different significance as the lessor may
be taking the proceeds to meet its unguaranteed residual value. Lessors are prepared to
take risks on residual values of such assets if there is an established and reliable market
in which to sell them. This could mean that the gains or losses from the fluctuation in
the fair value of the residual do not fall predominantly to the lessee and, in the absence
of other factors, could indicate that it is an operating lease.
Example 23.6: Rental rebates
The lease arrangements are as in Example 23.5, except that at end of the lease, the lessee sells the vehicle as
an agent for the lessor, and if it is sold for:
(i) up to €3,000, all of the proceeds are received by the lessor; or
(ii) more than €3,000, 99% of the excess is repaid to the lessee.
The lessee does not have to make good any deficit, should one arise.
In this example, it appears that the lessor is using the sale proceeds to meet its unguaranteed residual value but
it is also taking the first loss provision. Only thereafter does the lessee gain or lose from the fluctuations in the
1626 Chapter 23
fair value. The lessee’s minimum lease payments have a net present value of €7,365, it has not guaranteed the
residual value at all and is not exposed to any risk of any fall in value, although it may benefit from increases in
the fair value in excess of €3,000. On balance this indicates that the arrangement is an operating lease.
3.2.3
Changes to lease terms and provisions
Lease classification is made at the inception of the lease, which is the earlier of the date of
the lease agreement or of a commitment by the parties to the principal provisions of the
lease. [IAS 17.4]. Lease classification is only changed ‘if at any time the lessee and the lessor
agree to change the provisions of the lease, other than by renewing the lease, in a manner
that would have resulted in a different classification of the lease under the criteria in
paragraphs 7-12 if the changed terms had been in effect at the inception of the lease...’
(see 3.2.2 above). The revised agreement is regarded as a new agreement over its term.
[IAS 17.13]. Changes in estimates (for example, changes in estimates of the economic life or
of the residual value of the leased item) or changes in circumstances (for example, default
by the lessee) do not result in the lease being reclassified for accounting purposes. [IAS 17.13].
The distinction between changes to the provisions of the lease and changes in estimate
is that the former, unlike the latter, are always the result of agreements between the
lessee and lessor.
This section does not address the measurement of these changes, as measurement is
addressed at 6 below.
IAS 17 does not discuss or illustrate these requirements.
(a)
Changes to the provisions or terms of an existing lease (‘modifications’)
Changes to the provisions or terms of an existing lease (referred to here as a
‘modification’) are changes to the contractual terms and conditions that are not part of the
original lease. Modifications that affect a lease’s classification are those that affect the
risks and rewards incidental to ownership of the asset by changing the terms and cash
flows of the existing lease. Examples of modifications that could affect classification
include those that change the duration of the lease and the number, amount and timing
of lease payments or inserting into the agreement an option to acquire the asset that was
not previously part of the lease terms. Some changes to lease terms will not affect the cash
flows at all, e.g. those that change terms such as the names of the contracting parties.
The revised agreement resulting from the modification is considered as if it were a new
agreement which should be accounted for appropriately, as a finance or operating lease,
prospectively over the remaining term of the lease.
IAS 17 does not give any specific guidance on how to assess whether modified lease
terms give rise to a new classification so the general classification rules described
in 3.2.2 above must be applied. Nor does it explain how to measure modifications of
leases if changes affect the value of the assets and liabilities for both lessor and lessee.
These issues are discussed at 6 below. Sections 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 below discuss how to
assess whether the classification has changed, based on the revised cash flows, and how
to account for the reclassification. Example
23.23 at
6.1.1 below describes
circumstances in which a lease term is extended mid-term, changing the cash flows over
the remainder of the original lease term as well as requiring the lessee to make payments
during the extended term.
Leases (IAS 17) 1627
If lease terms are modified but the classification does not change, the entity will still
have to account for
the modified cash flows. How to account for the changes if a finance
lease remains a finance lease is discussed at 6.1.3 below. Accounting for changes to the
terms of operating leases, where those changes do not result in reclassification, is
considered at 6.1.5 below.
(b) The lessee and lessor renew the lease
If the lessee and lessor renew the lease, this could mean one of the following:
• The lessee exercises an option to extend the lease when the option was not
included in the original lease term (i.e. exercise of the renewal option was not
reasonably certain at lease inception). Changes in circumstances or intentions such
as exercising an option that was excluded from the initial lease term do not give
rise to a new classification of the original lease.
• The lessee enters into a new lease with the lessor at the end of the lease term. For
example, in the absence of a contractual right, an entity may have a right to ‘renew’
a lease of business premises for a further term after expiry of the initial lease term
at the market rent. This is not a change to the terms of the original lease. In some
jurisdictions the ability to renew at market rates is a statutory right to ensure that
businesses are not forced to relocate. This is similar in effect to an option to extend
at market value so under a risks and rewards model the renewal period would not
pass the significant risks and rewards to the lessee.
Orange SA discloses that it holds commercial leases that it may choose to renew
on expiry of the term.
Extract 23.1: Orange S.A. (2016)
Consolidated financial statements [extract]
NOTE 14 Unrecognized contractual commitments excluding Orange Bank [extract]
14.1
Commitments related to operating activities [extract]
Operating leases [extract]
The property lease commitments in France represent approximately 59% of the total of the property lease commitments.
The Group may choose whether or not to renew these leases upon expiration or replace them by other leases with
renegotiated terms and conditions.
• The lessee and lessor could revoke the original lease and enter into a new one in
its place, which would also be considered a renewal. It is necessary to ensure that
the new lease terms are at fair value at the time the new lease is entered into so it
does not reflect, for example, underpayments or overpayments made by the lessee
under the terms of the original lease.
• The lessee and lessor could agree to extend the existing lease without changing
any other term, e.g. with the consent of the lessor, continuing to use the asset
for a period of time after the original expiry at the original rental. This is similar
to the requirements in IFRIC 4, discussed at 2.1.5 above, under which an entity
does not have to reassess an arrangement to see if it contains a lease if a change
in the contractual terms only renews or extends the arrangement. [IFRIC 4.10].
This has to be distinguished from a negotiation between the lessee and lessor
1628 Chapter 23
that changes the terms of the original lease before its expiry, although this
would probably also include other changes such as a different rental and. in
which case, the accounting would fall under (a) above.
A new or extended lease will be classified according to its own terms.
Example 23.7 below illustrates various scenarios and their effects or otherwise on
classification.
Example 23.7: Lease classification
Consider the following scenarios:
(a) Entity A leases a motor vehicle from Entity B for a non-cancellable three-year period. At the inception
of the lease, the lease was assessed as an operating lease. The lease did not contain any explicit option
in the lease contract to extend the term of the lease. A short period of time before the end of the lease
term, Entity A negotiates with Entity B to extend the lease for a further two years. This extension is
granted by the leasing company at fair value.
The lease modification results in a new forward starting lease, not a change in the provisions of the
original lease, which will be accounted for on its own terms. This does not affect the classification of
the original lease. Although the lease inception of the new lease would be the date on which negotiations
were completed, the new lease would not be accounted for until its commencement, which will be after
the termination of the original lease.
(b) Entity C leases a machine tool from Entity D for 5 years, expecting to purchase a new asset after the
lease expires. After 3 years, Entity C concludes that it is more economically viable for it to lease the
asset from Entity D for a total of 8 years. The lessor agrees to revised lease terms and the lease is
extended by 3 years, giving a total term of 8 years. At the same time the lease payments for years 4 and
5 are revised so that Entity C will pay a new rental for each of the years 4 to 8.
This is a lease modification as it has resulted in a change to the terms of the original lease. The entity
will have to assess whether the revised lease is an operating or finance lease.
(c) Entity E leases an asset from Entity F for 10 years. The lease includes a purchase option under which
Entity E may purchase the asset from Entity F at the end of the lease. The exercise price is fair value.
Entity E is required to give notice of its intention to purchase no later than the end of the eighth year of
the lease (since this arrangement allows Entity F time to market the leased asset for sale). On inception,
Entity E classifies the lease as an operating lease, believing it was not reasonably certain that it would
exercise the option. Near the end of the eighth year of the lease, Entity E serves notice that it will
purchase the asset, thereby creating a binding purchase commitment.
Entity E exercises an option that was not considered reasonably certain at inception; this is a change in estimate
and does not affect lease classification. Many entities would consider the arrangement to be executory at the
time that the notice is given even though there is a legal obligation to make the option payment (see Chapter 27
at 2.2.1.A) and therefore would account for the purchase option only when it is exercised.
3.3
Leases of land – finance or operating leases?
The standard requires an entity to assess the classification of leases over land as finance
or operating leases in accordance with the general rules in paragraphs 7-13 that are
described at 3.2.2 above. Many leases include elements for both land and buildings and
both parts must be considered separately as discussed in 3.3.2 below.
The standard includes a reminder that ‘in determining whether the land element is
an operating or a finance lease, an important consideration is that land normally has
an indefinite economic life’. [IAS 17.15A]. A lease term for the major part of the
economic life of the asset can indicate that a lease is a finance lease, even if title is
not transferred, [IAS 17.10], and by repeating this in paragraph 15A, which was
Leases (IAS 17) 1629
introduced in an amendment that came into force on 1 January 2010, the IASB is
stressing that this particular feature of finance leases is not likely to be met. Prior to
amendment in 2009, IAS 17 required init
ial classification of land leases to be based
on whether or not title had passed. Where title to the land had not passed and it had
an indefinite economic life, the land was normally classified as an operating lease,
while the buildings element was an operating lease or finance lease according to the
classification in the standard.4
The fact that land normally has an indefinite life will be assessed alongside other
features that distinguish finance leases from operating leases. As well as considering
whether the minimum lease payments amount to substantially all of the fair value,
it is necessary to consider whether the lease includes other features that indicate
that the significant risks and rewards of ownership rest with the lessor rather than
the lessee. These include significant contingent rentals, rentals that are reset to
market rates and fair value purchase options, all of which could indicate that the
lease is an operating lease.
Some have questioned whether a purchase of a right to use land could ever be classified
as a fixed asset, i.e. as property, plant and equipment (PP&E) under IAS 16 or an intangible
asset under IAS 38, especially in circumstances in which the right can be extended
indefinitely, as happens in some jurisdictions. The Interpretations Committee noted that
a lease could be indefinite with extensions or renewals so the fact that the right to use
could have an indefinite period does not prevent it from qualifying as a lease in
accordance with IAS 17. In the particular country, entities can purchase a right to exploit
or build on land that can be extended indefinitely, subject to government rights to take
back possession at the end of the term or otherwise with compensation. The Committee
concluded that the particular arrangement should be classified as a lease. However,
because the circumstances were specific to a jurisdiction, the Committee decided not to
take the matter onto its agenda.5
An advantage of classifying certain land leases as finance leases is that they can then be
presented in the financial statements as property, plant and equipment. Under the
previous standard, unless title to the land transfers to the lessee, premiums paid for a
International GAAP® 2019: Generally Accepted Accounting Practice under International Financial Reporting Standards Page 321
